[MacLoggerContest] Any other topics?
g0dvj at amsat.org
Mon Feb 28 16:02:54 EST 2005
On Feb 26, 2005, at 10:22 pm, I wrote:
> So have we exhausted the debate on this list now ? Covered
LOL - Clearly there was more to say ! Nice to see renewed activity on
the list !
I am going to try to pull together bits from the various inputs to the
thread in this mail...
On Feb 26, 2005, at 10:50 pm, Walter O'Brien, W2WJO wrote:
> Not everybody uses CT...
true - and although I have (in fact I have used most of them for
something LOL), many people especially this side of the Pond do not use
CT unless they are one of the big multi-multi groups - but I think
picking out compatibility with any one or two or three of existing
programs is problematic as an approach in any case.
> I think an MLC for every possible network PC contest is raising the
> bar pretty high. Of course, if that's your requirement, then that's
> what you need. But just a great contesting package with flexibility
> for the various major contests is sure a great start. It can always be
> tweaked and added on as it goes.. start with single user, work your
> way up to multi and SO2R, etc.
I agree about this raising the bar very (too) high and as Don said:
On Feb 28, 2005, at 2:47 pm, Don Agro wrote:
> If compatibility with multiple existing undocumented data transfer
> protocols is a show stopper - well then consider the show stopped - at
> this end anyway.
> This is just so far from reasonable that I am (almost) speechless.
> Cabrillo, ADIF fine - but interoperability with PC network loggers
> when THEY don't even interoperate ?
On Feb 28, 2005, at 2:29 pm, John Bastin wrote:
> I'll put in a second to that request. For maximum usefulness, we need
> to be compatible in data formats and transfer protocols with what's
> already out there.
I sympathise with the vision that John and Bill paint, but for now at
least I think this amounts to trying to "boil the ocean" in terms of
sorting out the general problem of non-interworking software for
multi-multi networked set-ups! What Don says about show stopping is
good enough for me! And I do not want to stop the show after we have
edged towards so much general agreement in other areas.
On Feb 28, 2005, at 5:19 pm, K1GQ wrote:
> It is true that there has been little incentive for existing software
> to interoperate at the network level, and none does that I am aware
> of. As Apple computer enthusiasts, we're painfully aware that pretty
> much all of the work needed to implement interoperability will rest on
> our shoulders.
This is the bit I have trouble subscribing to! Why should it rest
with Mac developers?
If we can develop an insanely great contest logger for Mac OSX then ...
[putting tongue firmly in cheek and bullet-proof vest on!] ... those
that can afford to have the best station (aka KC1XX et al.) will also
want to have the best computing platform and logging software and so
invest in 11 Mac Mini's & MLC version n (where n is not too small a
number !!) LOL ? I am attempting to inject a little
light-heartedness into the debate in case anyone missed it! But
there is a case for making contest logging for the single op (including
multi-op SINGLE station - i.e. one op at a time!) so pleasant and easy
with MLC that it encourages all those smaller contest stations to get
on and give more points away to the bigger guns!
I believe that those of us who are dedicated enough to do multi-multi,
have already proved that we will use all sorts of D(r)OS and Windoze
systems with all their peculiarities and imperfections to get the
logging done - those who don't and won't ever do M-M are the prime
customers for an OSX solution which is a breeze to use (like hardware
like software! c.f. father - son).
On Feb 28, 2005, at 5:19 pm, K1GQ wrote:
> (2) I'd like the designers of MLC to not overlook the features implied
> by this configuration that do not apply at all in the single-computer
> situation, such as Gab and Partner mode, not to mention the
> fundamental database issues surrounding managing a consistent log with
> multiple asynchronous writers. And then there are the serial number
These are the features that I would love to be borne in mind when
designing MLC so that if it is possible to extend it for M-M after the
initial versions that it is not such a problem. I do agree with Bill
On Feb 28, 2005, at 6:59 pm, Jack Brindle wrote:
> Let's get a good, solid contest program for the Mac going, with the
> proper hooks to add whatever we want in the future. I think we agree,
> we really need that.
Yes so that is the first agreed over-riding point we have reached
consensus on then ? :)
But it may turn out that design-wise as well as
focus-on-market-segment-wise, there is a case for only using this
knowledge of the extra hooks that would be required to decide that 2
programs are required (in the fullness of time) as with Doppler and
DopplerPro, Maybe MLC and MLC-Multi ? *IF* this was the conclusion
then maybe MLC design should be done with SO2R hooks for later in mind
thereby re-enforcing the idea of Single Station (single or multi-op,
one or two radios) for MLC and Multiple Station support for MLC-Multi ?
Note I am not trying to seemingly double the work of Don here - rather
catalysing the discussion about how wide to make the scope of what we
can do in one insanely great piece of contest software!
In fact I was surprised and rather encouraged that no-one squealed when
I suggested in an early thread here that MLC could support both HF and
VHF contesters, which I don't think is attempted by very many other
solutions around. It's not that i don't appreciate the differences
between these categories as in the same way that there are differences
for Multi-Single & Multi-Multi - just which categories can be brought
together for the benefit of the users.
On with the debate ... I will hold off a bit more before offering the
top 5 feature list that we are looking to get support from 20 of us to
achieve a level of consensus on :) For those that don't know what I
mean by this, let me re-quote what Don expressed to me at the outset of
the formation of this list ...
I want everyone here to be absolutely clear about why I am putting so
much effort into the consensus building ! :)
On 2-Feb-05, at 10:28 AM, Don Agro wrote:
> I would really appreciate seeing your original email posted back to
> the Ham-Mac list re-written in order of priority - If 20 people on the
> Ham-Mac list can agree on the top 5 priorities I will jump into the
> fray with MacLoggerContest. The reason I am asking for that level of
> detail is not just to get a consensus amongst the enthusiasts, but to
> make sure I (a non-contester) get a firm grip on what it would take to
> make an insanely great contesting program.
We need the debate on any topics - they are all valid! But I could
also simply produce a spec for MLC which suits just me and what I do
and which I state is non-negotiable - however I don't feel that would
be helpful :)
Oh and there are 41 people subscribed to this list - so if some of you
would prefer to give opinions direct to Don or via myself instead of on
the list (I know that some may have been "flamed" when giving views on
other lists before in their Internet lives which may leave them less
comfy about posting to the whole list), then please do reply directly.
All opinions are welcomed.
More information about the MacLoggerContest